One of the best players of all time, Luis Scott Vargas, has an article in which he explains why mid-range decks (like The Rock), as an archetype, are just bad and should really not be played in competitive events.
He basically condemns the whole archetype and instead exhorts you to play either full-on Aggro, pure Control, or Combo.
I have to say I agree with him. I've always held decks like Rock in disdain, because they are bastardized control decks that try to fulfill too many roles and do nothing effectively. Finally a pro player articulates this nicely.
Don't assume I have read any response you might have made directed toward me in a thread or post. The best method to contact me is Private Message as I will always check there upon logging on
i think LSV unfairly downplays midrange's advantage over aggro in trying to make his argument.
You guys are such noobs and scrubs when it comes to designing cards. All of you. In fact I won't exaggerate If I say I'm the best designer in the forum. Hell, I'm probably a better designer than WotC themselves. I'm easily the best designer in the world and you're all n00bs for not seeing that. All of you are black-listed.
-kroen
[UCC #2] The Unanimous Card Contest [Signups]
This is a very unique contest, that could, theoretically, last months before a winner is declared.
Black List The following users are banned from the contest and may not participate: Everyone
Good points, but I have to say, I heartily disagree. Playing a deck that is bad is bad. It all comes down to specific card choices and what you expect to face. Cards that are dead in more than about 20% of your matchups don't belong in the maindeck, period. The trick is figuring out which cards are dead cards.
Awesome article tho with a lot of good info and things to think about.
ss, dammit
Come play Magic the way it was meant to be played: http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134942/Vintage
I do not think that he downplays Midranges advantage's over aggro. He says multiple times that the deck is designed to beat aggro because the field is laden with aggro decks, yet when he found himself playing the deck he would lose on occasion to boros deck wins etc.
THAT is the main problem with rock, is that it's not always a rock when you get certain draws vs aggro. Without the perfect balance he talked about you can get very control heavy draws or very creature based draws and just lose matchs you are supposed to win.
I think its a good deckbuilder's excercise in that a deck is meant to focus and win on it's own, not just respond and attack.
I do not think that he downplays Midranges advantage's over aggro. He says multiple times that the deck is designed to beat aggro because the field is laden with aggro decks, yet when he found himself playing the deck he would lose on occasion to boros deck wins etc.
this is how he downplays it. i could write an article with the exact same information LSV used but make it a positive midrange POV. his arguments are way more abstract than you realize.
"midrange has a huge advantage over aggro, losing only on occasion due to bad draws" "midrange decks are powerful because they are designed to shift into the gear that best counters your opponents strategy" "the inherent flaw in control and aggro decks is that they are pigeonholed into only one possible line of attack, and when that line of attack is broken, that deck becomes hopeless"
You guys are such noobs and scrubs when it comes to designing cards. All of you. In fact I won't exaggerate If I say I'm the best designer in the forum. Hell, I'm probably a better designer than WotC themselves. I'm easily the best designer in the world and you're all n00bs for not seeing that. All of you are black-listed.
-kroen
[UCC #2] The Unanimous Card Contest [Signups]
This is a very unique contest, that could, theoretically, last months before a winner is declared.
Black List The following users are banned from the contest and may not participate: Everyone
Midrange plays big creatures early in order to beat aggro.
Control plays slow CA-spells in order to beat midrange.
Aggro plays fast small creatures in order to beat control.
It is always hard to balance an archetype's inherent weaknesses and its strengths. It is hard to make an aggro deck that beats both midrange and control. It is hard to make a control deck that has inevitability against midrange and still beats fast aggro. Why would it be easy to make a midrange deck that beats both control and aggro handily? That's just not the way the game is.
Other than that, I believe LSV makes a mistake when he writes that midrange "adapts to the opposite role of whatever the opposing deck is playing" and that this is a weakness. This is just not a valid argument.
In Suicide Black vs. Sligh, Sui Black would have to play the role of the control deck. This is because of the simple fact that if they both attacked all-out, Sligh would kill its opponent first. All decks function like that. Not just midrange.
I agree with LSV that just throwing together a midrangish deck and hoping to beat the common archetypes is plain dumb. Obviously, the midrange deck would have to be extremely tight and focused - I would never dream of playing Wrath in what is essentially a creature-based deck. It needs focus and a tight game plan. Standard Elves have no reach, but because they can take away resources early with Thoughtseize it's hard to deal big creatures like Putrid Leech, Chameleon Colossus and Vanquisher in the mid-game - you know, where midrange is strongest.
Comment to the card Nurturer Initiate: [QUOTE=phaseshifter;15594671]She can suck as much as she wants, she's hot
Edit:.....wow, I just realised what I just said...[/QUOTE] --------- [QUOTE=reedbee]I can't count on both hands the number of times I've woken up next to a gorgeous girl after she came up to me and asked to get a better look at my Wumpus.[/QUOTE] ---- [QUOTE=Beanman1000;17774354]Naw man, you just walk around with a messenger bag with a trade binder and some decks, then use amazing magic pick up lines like "Hey baby, I'd tap that" and "Hey honey, wanna see me use giant growth?"[/QUOTE] ---- [QUOTE=Dr_Kraid;18066052]I want to be banned for laying my ween0r on my opponent's deck and posting pictures on the Internet [/QUOTE] ---- On Master Transmuter: [QUOTE=namdoolb;18132994]Nah, I'd rather send her packing on my flame javelin .[/QUOTE] ---- [QUOTE=Caldera42;14735749]And I'm not a jerk to myself.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Islands;14771286]You're missing out.[/QUOTE] ---- [QUOTE=Axl_Strife;17032267]I'm Matt Gottlieb b*tch! *banhammer*[/QUOTE]
Moral of the story... Serra is the kind of angel you marry... She's very loyal and always there for you both to attack or block. BSA... Well, she's the kind you call up every now and then to do all those things Serra won't do on some random Friday night.
[QUOTE=Momo;17971299]Actually you win, sir.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sisomic;17973044]A "You win, sir." from Momo is worth 10 zillion dabloons. If only you could sell it...[/QUOTE]
There were others - this one was just the only one that mattered.
Skide Fuld - Problem of Evil by frontsession Check out the first one of my songs to be recorded by my Jazz/Fusion/whatever-band. Critique is welcome - just send me a PM or something.
Midrange plays big creatures early in order to beat aggro.
Control plays slow CA-spells in order to beat midrange.
Aggro plays fast small creatures in order to beat control.
It is always hard to balance an archetype's inherent weaknesses and its strengths. It is hard to make an aggro deck that beats both midrange and control. It is hard to make a control deck that has inevitability against midrange and still beats fast aggro. Why would it be easy to make a midrange deck that beats both control and aggro handily? That's just not the way the game is.
Other than that, I believe LSV makes a mistake when he writes that midrange "adapts to the opposite role of whatever the opposing deck is playing" and that this is a weakness. This is just not a valid argument.
In Suicide Black vs. Sligh, Sui Black would have to play the role of the control deck. This is because of the simple fact that if they both attacked all-out, Sligh would kill its opponent first. All decks function like that. Not just midrange.
I agree with LSV that just throwing together a midrangish deck and hoping to beat the common archetypes is plain dumb. Obviously, the midrange deck would have to be extremely tight and focused - I would never dream of playing Wrath in what is essentially a creature-based deck. It needs focus and a tight game plan. Standard Elves have no reach, but because they can take away resources early with Thoughtseize it's hard to deal big creatures like Putrid Leech, Chameleon Colossus and Vanquisher in the mid-game - you know, where midrange is strongest.
Just my 50 cent.
QFT. You put it way better there than I could have. There absolutely IS room for mid range control decks IF that deck is HIGHLY in tune with whatever the metagame is. Those decks have the potential to be the best decks in the meta, but if you dont make them just right, they will be very bad. I think after a while a lot of good deckbuilders realize that you can get a lot of wins if you learn to make a meta specific mid range deck.
Rock-like decks aren't bad, they just need to be tuned to the environment they are in. Yes a 1st place rock deck in an aggro heavy tourny will do poorly when charlie from down the street netdecks it and brings it to his lark heavy FNM, but its not the fault of the achetype. Rocks greatest strength is the ability to shift gears, making tuning for specific meta's much more important than any other deck.
[/QUOTE]
